Jump to content

Talk:Ping Fu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Laserweld (talk | contribs) at 22:35, 11 March 2013 (→‎Amazon "Attack"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Amazon "Attack"

Ping Fu is currently subject to an attack, at [1]. Daily Beast characterizes it as an "online Chinese attack," saying that it "bears elements of the type of Internet bullying—known by the ominous phrase “human flesh search”—that is increasingly common among Chinese bloggers." [1]

In the last few days, there have been a number of anonymous edits to this article that appear to be related to the Amazon attack. Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a policy on how to handle biographical material about living persons; see WP:BLP. It applies to every page on the project, including this talk page. Wikipedia isn't the place to put The Truth about things you think are being covered up. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox to share your opinions. Nor, especially, is the the place to put "evidence" you've dug up (using original research) about who people are or how what they think is wrong.
It might be helpful for you to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Fearofreprisal (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP should be observed. But this page itself violates it, namely WP:SELFPUB, unduly self serving self published source. I agree with First Light that qualifiers such as "In her biography" or "Ping recounts" should be added to the relevant paragraphs. By the way, let me introduce myself. I have observed the Ping Fu memoir controversy since the very beginning and have done a lot of my own research on this issue. I consider the current page unduly biased in favor of Ping Fu and will try to help improve it, without violating WP:BLP. Majiaerhao (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you see valid edits that should be done to the page, then you should do them. Be sure to read [WP:NPOV]],WP:OR and WP:ADVOCACY VanHarrisArt (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to be confrontational with you. I appreciate your contribution here. But I believe you have been overly zealous in your defense of Ping Fu, and in so doing have practiced WP: ADVOCACY and violated WP:NPOV by pushing an exclusively negative viewpoint about the criticism / doubts casted on Ping Fu's memoir. Majiaerhao (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify where I've practiced advocacy or violated NPOV. I need specific examples to be able to respond meaningfully. VanHarrisArt (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point. One of the sections on the talk page you just deleted, “NPOV label added”, is the first entry of the talk page. In that entry, Cloudsorest raises the valid concern of WP:NPOV, pointing out the WP:SELFPUB nature of the Ping Fu page. It further correctly points out one of the inconsistencies in the original version of this promotional page: “exile” and “student visa” are self contradictory. Cloudsorest's whistle blowing was vindicated when Ping Fu herself acknowledged the use of "deportation" and "exile" as improper. Please consider reverting the section added by Cloudsorest to its original form. As this talk page stands right now, it looks suspiciously like a WP:SOAPBOX for your personal animosity toward the protest that happened on the Amazon site. Respectfully, Majiaerhao (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Amazon, Wikipedia has a policy on how to handle biographical material about living persons; see WP:BLP. It applies to every page on the project, including this talk page. Wikipedia isn't the place to put The Truth about things you think are being covered up. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox to share your opinions. Nor, especially, is the the place to put "evidence" you've dug up (using original research) about who people are or how what they think is wrong. Cloudsorest's comments wouldn't have passed muster on the article page, and they didn't past muster here. I stand by my edit. See WP:TPO VanHarrisArt (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware of WP:BLP. At the same time, the talk page exists for a purpose: for people to discuss possible changes (or potential issues) with the page in question. WP:TPG "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation". Given that Cloudsorest raises valid WP:NPOV concerns in his/her post, and that his/her speculation has been vindicated by the acknowledgement of Ping Fu herself, your invocation of BLP to delete Cloudsorest's post in the talk page comes across to me as unnecessary. It can be perceived as bullying by those holding opinions different from your own on the Ping Fu memoir controversy. Majiaerhao (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Majiaerhao, other editors here believe that the article in its current form is balanced in the way it treats the controversy about the book. The online attacks and claims are covered, along with Ping Fu's defense. These things are treated in the same balanced way that reliable sources are treating it. If anything, the controversy is given too much coverage, but all in all, this article and the subject are being treated in accordance with Wikipedia policies on WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. If you think otherwise, then you are free to open a new section on the talk page to discuss your concerns and to see if you can change the minds of the long established and uninvolved Wikipedia editors who also see that the article is relatively balanced. First Light (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. I will try to lay out in a new section why I think the page as it is right now is biased. Time permitting, I will do that tonight or tomorrow. Majiaerhao (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Light, I don't think that this page in its current form is balanced. The part about Ping Fu as the subject is virtually an extract from Bend Not Break, and contradicts a lot to Ping's first memoir in Chinese. Many such details are actually unnecessary for a Wikipedia article, and best left out to avoid controversy.

For now, it is not different from an advertisement for Bend Not Break, which is a violation of Wikipedia rules. LarryTr7 (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the bio sections are referenced to Inc. (magazine), which is a reliable source. Do read the links under the "Welcome" message on your talk page so you can get a better grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Some helpful ones are: WP:NPOV; WP:RS; WP:UNDUE. First Light (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First Light: There's good evidence that the LarryTr7 account is associated with a false identity created solely to astroturf this issue. The identity has been used to post many hundreds of critical comments on nearly every website that mentions Ping Fu. VanHarrisArt (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VanHarrisArt is a privately paid, full-time investigator spying on Wikipedia contributors. He has made hundreds if not thousands of threatening message to those in opposite view of his or his financial sponsor's. He is a worst enemy of Wikipedia's neutral and fair spirit. A review of his behavior is strongly recommended. Laserweld (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help with new draft

Hi there everyone. As has been noted already on this Talk page, the publication of Ping Fu's memoir has led to significant attention (much of it quite negative) being brought to this article in the last week.

Even before the recent spate of edits, the article needed some work to bring it in line with Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies, and the edits from detractors created new problems by adding unsourced material and original research. Editors who have worked on the article in the last day or so have made improvements but—as the tags on the article indicate—more is needed. I'd like to help with making this article more accurate and make sure that it fully meets WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, as well as generally making it a better resource for people who would like to learn about Ping Fu.

I'm introducing myself here as I am working on behalf of Geomagic (the company she co-founded) to produce a new draft for this article. My aim is to have impartial editors review the draft to ensure that it provides a neutral, accurate biography. I'm fully informed of the guidelines around conflict of interest and will not be making any edits directly to the page myself. If you're interested in helping with this, you can reply here or on my Talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most pressing need is for third-party reliable sourcesWP:RS. For the last 15 or so years, there should be plenty of sources, as Ping Fu has been relatively high profile as a businessperson. I believe we need some good citations regarding her college time in the US, including her time at NCSA, and her relationship to the Mosaic project.
Looking at the Life and Career section, the first two paragraphs dealing with her early life seem uncontroversial, and correlate with what was known to be happening in China at the time. I have removed the controversial material from the third paragraph, but I think we still need any good secondary source citations that are available.
Much of the controversy over Ping Fu originated with blogger Fang Zhouzi. While he is not a reliable source himself (he definitely lacks NP:NPOV) he has raised issues about inconsistencies in Ping Fu's memoir, Bend Not Break. The subsequent response from Chinese and Chinese-American netizens has been so large in scale and so widespread that it is notable in itself, and justifies a separate section in the article. (What has been called a Human Flesh Search attack against Ping Fu manifested here in both IP vandalism and negative feedback, and has resulted in the page being semi-protected, and added to the article feedback blacklist.) So, we will likely want to have any citations available related to this controversy.Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You make some good points here and it's definitely my intention to work on adding more and better citations for all the information in the article. On your last point, I agree that the response to her book does merit mention (perhaps in its own section) — there are lots of good sources available, but feel free to note here if there are any in particular that you think should be cited and I'll take a look. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add that when incidents in her life (other than the most factual statements like parent's names, location of birth, etc.) are referenced solely to her biography, then such statements should be preceded by something like "In her biography, Bend, Not Break: A Life in Two Worlds, Ping describes...." and later "Ping recounted....," etc. That isn't needed in every sentence, but perhaps at the beginning of a paragraph that is entirely from her book, and then later in certain instances. First Light (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about Controversy section

Hi, as I've written above, I'm working on behalf of Geomagic on a new draft for this page, which I'll hopefully have ready to share with editors here soon. Meanwhile, I see that a Controversy section has been added to the article. Right now, this section is quite long and I'm concerned that its prominence in the article will lead to it becoming a focus for POV edits to the article. The main issue with the section is that it seems WP:UNDUE, compared to the overall length of the article, and particularly compared with coverage of her career. I'm curious to get other editors' input on this. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having "Controversy" sections in an article are discouraged (see WP:STRUCTURE, among others), so I've renamed that section after the book. There probably should be a section just on the book, since it's one of the 2-3 things she is most notable for. Just looking at references, it appears that the book received more positive reviews than negative "controversy," so the section should reflect that. First Light (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for renaming the section. We can expect to see periodic POV edits and ip vandalism, based on the continuing cyber-bullying that's going on (look at any of the recent media citations in the article, then check out their comment streams. It's vicious.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both of you for your edits. The section is looking better now, for sure. Do you think it's worth asking for the semi-protection of the article to be extended for a while? I think I've seen before that editors tend not to want to keep semi-protection in place if there's not a lot of negative activity, but I don't really know what's considered a problematic level. Do either of you have any experience with this? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is not enough vandalism at this point to justify semi-protection. Wikipedia errs on the side of encouraging contributions, so it's not a step that's taken lightly. I'm certain that you're tracking this article in your watchlist. I'm fairly certain that others are too. If it gets to be a problem, it can be dealt with. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the article is being watched and any vandalism or POV edits have been reverted. If it gets really bad, than it can be semi-protected. First Light (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes sense to me. And thanks for your input - like I say, I don't have much experience around semi-protection, so it's good to get a better understanding. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations

I'm at my third revert in 24 hours on this page, and don't want to violate WP:3RR, and end up in an edit war. Next POV or OR post, I'll escalate it to the WP:BLP/Noticeboard. VanHarrisArt (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a note at the BLP noticeboard about this article. The stream of brand new single purpose account(s) seems to be a longer term trend, so this should get more experienced editors watching the article. First Light (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

Lots of excitement in the last few hours. User:Physeng was blocked for edit warring. The External Links section has been killed, and needs to be rebuilt properly. So, the page is being watched. And there is work to do to get this cleaned up. VanHarrisArt (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That External Links section was bloated beyond repair, in my opinion (see WP:EL). Kudos to the admin who deleted it. It would be better to rebuild through discussion, though none of those links were essential according to WP:EL. First Light (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
based on the sock puppet attacks I have requested page protection. note that the attacks are also being carried on through the new article creation process [2] something else to keep an eye out for. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - it's time for protection. It looks like the online campaign against Ping Fu is still going on, based on the continued stream of negative reviews at Amazon. First Light (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that User talk:Wiki_Truth_Finder007 has been warned 3 times, and has ignored the warnings. (He/she just did it again!)
While, in most cases, I'm willing to assume good faith, this case is a bit special. Wiki_Truth_Finder is a WP:SPA created exactly for the purpose it's being used for - to post defamatory content about Ping Fu. WP:3RR is a bright-line rule: Wiki_Truth_Finder should be blocked, irrespective of whether the page is protected.
On a related note, there is strong evidence that User talk:LarryTr7 is a Sockpuppet (Internet)#Meatpuppet -- not under the typical WP:meatpuppet definition, but rather under the more serious Internet definition -- and is here, not to build an encylopedia, but rather as part of a coordinated cyber-bullying campaign. The persona associated with the account uses a Facebook account that appears to have been created as a false identity a few months back, and which has been used only to post negative comments on Ping Fu around the web (over 400 in the last month.) Yes, I'm familiar with the seriousness of a bad-faith accusation. I wouldn't do it without strong evidence. If I've overstepped, please let me know. VanHarrisArt (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've acted in exactly the right manner. Personally, the name "Wiki_Truth_Finder" should immediately ring alarm bells - users like that often push fringe theories, or hateful content. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VanHarrisArt is a productive defender of this article, but its arguments contradict from time to time. Editors of neutral position are needed to monitor this page. People associated with Geomagic or 3D Systems shall not be too actively involved. DevanYaris (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm not sure what you mean about being a defender of this article, but I do try to defend the integrity of Wikipedia. I'm not sure what you mean by "its arguments contradict." The purpose of a WP article is not to make arguments. In any event, this article has been watchlisted by Wikipedia administrators, so it is being watched. And no people from Geomagic or 3D Systems are currently editing, or (to my knowledge) will be editing the article. VanHarrisArt (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Romantic Realist agrees with Van Harris Art that no people from Geomagic or 3D Systems should edit Wikipedia entry on Bend, Not Break. Such Code of Conduct should also extend to people associated with public relations agencies and investor relations firms, and law firms working on behalf of Ping Fu, Geomagic or 3D Systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romantic Realist (talk • contribs) 03:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From: Romantic Realist [Please help with Wikipedia coding] Bing says: The wiki references originally has included two reports from the Guardian, Feb 4 and Feb 13, on the controversy about the memoir. Now the one on Feb 13 titled "Ping Fu's childhood tales of China's cultural revolution spark controversy" is not there anymore. Ref 12 and Ref 19 are the same, both retrieving the Feb 4 review titled "Chinese cast doubt over executive's rags to riches tale."

The Guardian review on Feb 13 is the only news report that has interviewed about 9 to 10 experts on various issues of inconsistencies and fabrications other than Ping Fu's own clarifications. Someone is trying really hard to hide this Guardian review on Feb 13. How can the wiki editors be notified?

Sorry, it's a little bit confusion. The Ping Fu wiki page is hiding the Guardian review on Feb 13, but the Bend, Not Break wiki has listed both reviews from the Guardian on Feb 4 and Feb 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romantic Realist (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The purpose of citations is to identify the reliable sources on which the article is based. If the citation you're talking about is not there any more, it's possible that it's not needed to support the article. There's no requirement that all the possible citations on a subject be included. But, let me add this: A quick look at your talk page User_talk:Romantic_Realist might cause one to question your concerns. VanHarrisArt (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most controversial source is the memoir Bend Not Break, but ironically, the most cited source in this article is Bend Not Break. What's your logic to justify that, VanHarrisArt? LarryTr7 (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Fu's first marriage missing

This is a formal biography, and critical information such as a marriage shall not be missing! In this case, Ping Fu herself stated clearly that she had her first marriage from 1986 to 1989, in her interview with DIDI KIRSTEN TATLOW, a journalist with New York Times. (see http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/true-or-false-the-tussle-over-ping-fus-memoir/) A first marriage is a very important event in one's life, omitting it in this biography is not acceptable.

Richewald (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book Bend, Not Break is a Memoir, not a formal biography. Memoirs are not required to include all events in the author's life. And didn't you just nominate this page for speedy deletion? VanHarrisArt (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Ping Fu, and must not be used solely as a tool to promote one single book of hers, namely Bend not Break.

For the sake of Wikipedia, it shall promote other books written by the author, in this article about her. Richewald (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote books. Consider reading WP:What Wikipedia is not to understand this better. VanHarrisArt (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To make it fair, contents of both memoirs shall be removed from this article, to avoid conflict of interest and suspicion of book promotion. LarryTr7 (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VanHarrisArt, Please note that this article is about the person of Ping Fu, not her English memoir. Don't mess up with these two. Thank you. Richewald (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent disruptive editing

The Ping Fu page was protected yesterday, so things have calmed down there. Over the last few days, a couple of users were blocked for WP:Edit Warring, and several Ping-Fu related [WP:Attack]] pages have been deleted, including: WP:Articles for creation/漂流瓶- A Memoir by Ping Fu, 漂流瓶-_A_Memoir_by_Ping_Fu, 漂流瓶-_A_Memoir_in_Chinese, and 漂流瓶 -_A_Memoir_in_Chinese.

Another page, Bend, Not Break, was created as an attack page, but was stubbed and rebuilt by an editor as a book page. I have some concern about this, as much of the controversy perceived to be about the book Bend, Not Break is actually directed not at the book, but at Ping Fu personally. Because of that, the controversy, to the extent that it should be covered in WP, should be covered here, rather than on a separate book page. Further, the new page is essentially a fork of this page, and it has the unintended effect of making the semi-protection of this page moot. VanHarrisArt (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Above argument strongly suggests that VanHarrisArt is emphasizing too much on personal interest about this article. Such behavior violates the neutrality rules of Wikipedia. Richewald (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, it doesn't. Neutrality has to do with article content, not anyone's behavior. Yworo (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in the controversy session, VanHarrisArt does not even allow others to add reference, just because VanHarrisArt believe that is not necessary. Why others can not even add reference? Isn't he/she making this article his/her own property? LarryTr7 (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bend, Not Break for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bend, Not Break is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bend, Not Break until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

The above AfD was closed procedurally. Safiel (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc: Should Bend, Not Break exist as a content fork of Ping Fu or should it be merged/redirected to Ping Fu ???

Should Bend, Not Break exist as a content fork of Ping Fu or should it be merged/redirected to Ping Fu ??? Safiel (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Oppose Merge This is a hard one and both sides make good arguments. However, as I looked at this again this morning, reviewed Google results and looked at the arguments made in the brief "AfD", on the other talk page and here, I have come to the conclusion that both articles should be kept separately. Both articles unmistakeable and robustly satisfy all relevant notability guidelines with no question whatsoever. And the article on the book can exist without constituting a POVFORK. Of course, it is a very rightful concern that the other article will be used for POV, editors simply need to refer to Wikipedia policies for dealing with that. Safiel (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support above suggestion, to merge Bend Not Break into Ping Fu. This is consistent to removal of articles about this author's other memoir. In addition, Ping Fu's first memoir in Chinese, 漂流瓶, should be included into this page for Ping Fu. This will make description of the person, not the book, complete. By the way, this article is not about promotion of a specific book to boost its sale, is it?? Richewald (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFF, mr SPA. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This BEND, NOT BREAK entry is about a book – its content, its reviews, controversy over factual allegations in this book[BLP content redacted], reaction from the Asian American community as a result of the use of the term “Hermaphrodite” by Sir Harold Evans in defense of Bend, Not Break. This entry is not about its author and co-author. Therefore, this BEND, NOT BREAK entry should stand on its own, separate and apart from PING FU entry in Wikipedia. Detailed discussions in PING FU’s Wikipedia entry on the controversy surrounding this book should be deleted, and merged into this Wikipedia entry for BEND, NOT BREAK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romantic Realist (talk • contribs) 16:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge Bend, Not Break should be separate, under WP:WikiProject Books. VanHarrisArt (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge Parts of the Ping Fu article should be migrated to Bend, Not Break if they are solely supported by the memoir. Majiaerhao (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to add contents about Ping Fu's first memoir, 漂流瓶

Since Ping's new (and second) memoir is extensively described in this article, it's totally unbalanced to exclude her first memoir, 漂流瓶, ISBN 7535315445, 9787535315441. Richewald (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. I've seen no evidence this memoir actually exists, or that it was actually written by Ping Fu. SPAs promoting the Anti-Fu campaign are the ONLY time it's ever come up. Considering you've had the article you're pushing deleted at least twice, you're clearly not in a zone to propose this. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's been deleted 4 times in the last 3 days, but who's counting? The book does exist, and was written (in Chinese) by Ping Fu. But to even consider including citations to the book here, we need to look at WP:NOENG. For verifiability, we would need an English translation - and, judging from the contentiousness of the situation, it would need to be from a reliable source. VanHarrisArt (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book does exist, just the Wikipedia article about it was vandalized, four times in a row! Why is somebody so afraid of it? LarryTr7 (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not vandalized; it was nominated for deletion and deleted. If anyone wishes to improve or discuss it, the current incarnation is at 漂流瓶- A Memoir in Chinese‎. However, please note that simple existence is not sufficient for an article to exist: it would need to be established that the book is notable. Given that I can't find a single discussion about it in English, nor a single library holding it anywhere in the world, I doubt it's notable, but that can be dealt with on that page. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not likely that any discussion of the book will pass WP:Verify, because of WP:NOENG and no WP:RS. There is no electronic version of the book. It is paper only. There is no English translation, and there won't be one, because of copyright. VanHarrisArt (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I found verifiable citations. VanHarrisArt (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian: This book of 漂流瓶 by Ping Fu can be found. See search result at National Library of China: (http://find.nlc.gov.cn/search/showDocDetails?docId=8553630059355238704&dataSource=ucs01&query=%E6%BC%82%E6%B5%81%E7%93%B6%2F%E6%97%85%E7%BE%8E) 高阶陶瓷 (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, that book exists, but is there any proof it isn't just a fake, made by Fu's detractors? And if the book IS legit, why have I seen publishing dates of 1996 and 2005 on different things different people have provided? Hmm. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proving that the book exists is not the same as proving that this person wrote it. We need some sort of reliable source. A library catalog is pretty borderline, but if an independent, reliable editor (i.e., not one of the dozens of SPAs who've sprung up on this article recently) can verify that the page clearly indicates that that book was written by this author, we could include a sentence here stating that. Of course, we would not include any commentary about it, unless that commentary appears in RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About this book being written by this Ping Fu, here is her own saying as confirmation: At 27:00 of this recording, http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/2013/jan/14/bend-not-break-china-america/. It was her interview by Leonard Lopate of WYNC on 1/14/2013. Richewald (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ping Fu has authored or co-authored about 40 academic papers too, but just because someone writes something, doesn't mean it belongs here. The book you're trying to get included here doesn't have an English translation. VanHarrisArt (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following VanHarrisArt's argument, I'd recommend removal of Bend Not Break from this article about Ping fu. Otherwise, this article will have to include all her papers written in English. LarryTr7 (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of her papers, only those that have been given coverage by reliable, neutral, third-party sources. Such as Bend, Not Break. First Light (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The severe controversy on Bend Not Break has greatly lowered its quality as a reliable or neutral source. Obviously it should not be regarded as a third party source, either. LarryTr7 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Tension and Proposal for Change

  • Including info from an autobiography is not self-promotion. This article itself is not an autobiography, because it wasn't (I assume) written by Ping Fu. What a subject says about themselves is perfectly acceptable for inclusion. Should conflicting sources become available, then we could include those as well, assuming issues like WP:DUE, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV are handled. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the confusion. I quote WP:AUTO only to point out material taken from a memoir is subject to wikipedian scrutiny. As for self-promotion, I mention it only because the coauthor of Ping Fu's memoir is the one who created this article. Majiaerhao (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:INDEPENDENT. “A primary third-party source is one that originates written information and is independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. This is contrasted with a primary first-party source, which originates written information but has a vested interest in the subject of a written topic, e.g., an autobiography or a politician's speech about their own campaign goals.” Majiaerhao (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to update the article with constructive edits to "neutralize" it. Just make sure your contributions are WP:verifiable, from WP:reliable sources. If you're uncertain, you can check here, or go to the WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard By the way, if you delete large chunks of the article, a bot will show up and quickly restore them. Trust me, it's not worth the trouble.]] VanHarrisArt (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fearofreprisal did do some “constructive edits” earlier. But that's the wrong approach! We cannot conduct original research to decide on our own which part of the text from the memoir seems controversial and which part seems not. The problem here is the lack of third-party reliable sources for the personal experiences described in Ping Fu's memoir. Events based purely on her memoir should not be in a wikipedia article in the first place. Majiaerhao (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I copy here Fearofreprisal's comment from an earlier section. Fearofreprisal: “Looking at the Life and Career section, the first two paragraphs dealing with her early life seem uncontroversial, and correlate with what was known to be happening in China at the time. I have removed the controversial material from the third paragraph, but I think we still need any good secondary source citations that are available.” Majiaerhao (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is original research. You cannot decide on your own which part of the text from the memoir seems controversial and which part seems not. The problem here is the lack of third-party reliable sources for the personal experiences described in Ping Fu's memoir. Events based purely on her memoir should not be in a wikipedia article in the first place. Majiaerhao (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Majiaerhao: Do NOT put a comment right in the middle of one of my existing comments. It splits it up, and makes it unreadable. I have moved the offending comment down here, to the bottom.
  • Here's a diff of the edit you were criticizing 04:21, 11 February 2013. All the changes were based on, and cited to, the book. As far as my characterization of "controversial": What I meant was "made up by people who haven't read the book, and who can cite no reliable sources." VanHarrisArt (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice try... but this article has been through enough review over the last couple of months that it's not too likely that you're going to get much agreement to eviscerate it. But what's your end game? You don't want anything about the book here? Do you want it in Bend, Not Break instead? VanHarrisArt (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slicing between two articles

I don't see any substantial support for a merge at this point, so I figure that Bend, Not Break is going to stay separate, as a book page. The interesting question is where the demarcations between the articles should be. I'd suggest this, as a first cut: The questions that have been raised about the book (i.e., accuracy), and their effect on the sales of the book, should be in the article about the book. The Internet vigilantism against Ping Fu that resulted should be covered here, and possibly at Chinese nationalism#Internet vigilantism. (These things, I believe, are all notable, and backed by multiple reliable sources.)

It's not an easy thing to slice this stuff up, but I think this proposal is reasonable. But all alternate proposals are welcome. Even those from Chinese nationalist Internet vigilantes. VanHarrisArt (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than an arbitrary division of topics, the book article and this one should be done in Wikipedia:Summary style. That means a short summary of the book in this article, with a link (as I've placed) to the main article about the book. I think that the nationalist attacks should certainly be part of her bio, as they were and are so personal. But they also deserve mention in the main book article, since the so called "controversy" about the book was somewhat artificially created, or at least inflated, by the sheer numbers of attacks. First Light (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have serious NPOV and OR concern here. Majiaerhao (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should make sweeping judgements on the memoir backlash. Majiaerhao (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article shouldn't be turned into a platform for vigilante attacks against Ping Fu. Neither should it be a platform for vigilante defense. Majiaerhao (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our coverage needs to reflect mainstream coverage by neutral reliable sources. Most articles that I'm seeing give coverage to three main areas, some more than others—but taken in total these are given fairly equal overall coverage: initial positive reviews; concerns about the accuracy of a few things in the book, along with PIng Fu's response; the massive online attacks and their origin. I think that the summary of the book in this article needs to briefly summarize each of those main points. The main book article should go into more depth, according to WP:Summary style. First Light (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the summary approach, but we need to get the summary right. Here are my concerns.
  • I'm worried about historical revisionisms such as suggesting the controversy as having been created by the online response, rather than the other way around.
  • I disagree with the seemingly dismissive characterization of the doubts cast over Ping Fu's stories, as just about “a few things”. Here is how two Guardian reports describe these doubts:
  • Feb 4, “a series of inconsistencies and improbabilities in interviews she has given”
  • Feb 4, “sceptics, including Fang Zhouzi, an influential blogger who scrutinises Chinese academia, say much of Fu's story does not ring true.”
  • Feb 13, “fresh contradictions emerge and experts cast doubt on key elements of her story”
  • Feb 13, “Closer examination of her book and interviews reveal numerous conflicting claims and experts told the Guardian several parts of her story were implausible.”
  • I also disagree with the sweeping characterization of the online responses as nationalistic. Notably, the New York Times, Guardian and the initial Forbes reports have all refrained from doing so. Majiaerhao (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Majiaerhao: Not sure where your NPOV or OR concerns come from. Of course, you know this article is already a target for vigilante attacks. As for characterization of the online responses: there are WP:RS that describe the attacks in a way that is consistent with Chinese nationalism. (Cultural, not political.) But I'm not pushing any viewpoints, or suggesting OR.
    • First Light: What you're describing is pretty much what I thought the right way to handle it would be. Thanks. VanHarrisArt (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Majiaerhao, plenty of reliable sources highlight the internet attacks as having a cultural basis— Telegraph, Daily Beast, New York Daily News, etc. Ironically, the lead paragraph of our Fang Zhouzi article states that "Chinese scholars have accused him of vigilantism," so he isn't as widely respected as you make him out to be. First Light (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't write that sentence about Fang Zhouzi. It was Tania Branigan, the China correspondent of Guardian, and Ed Pilkington, the chief reporter for Guardian US, who wrote it. Last I checked, I didn't point a gun at them to force them to write something good about Fang Zhouzi, so that I can throw it at you on wikipedia.
  • The thing is, I didn't even quote that sentence from the Guardian to talk up Fang Zhouzi. (Personally, I admire his efforts at exposing academic fraud, but don't agree with everything he does or says). I quoted that sentence only to show that, as I stated, it's inaccurate to say, as you did, that people were having concerns about just “a few things”. To minimize the doubts people had is an act of historical revisionism.
  • You are proving my NPOV and OR points.
  • It's at least debatable if we don't want the Bend Not Break controversy to be included on the Ping Fu article for BLP reasons. If we include the controversy, we have to get things right. We can't let our personal feelings dictate which reportings get reflected on the Ping Fu article.
  • As to my point about “sweeping characterization”.
  • Again, we can't let our personal feelings cloud our judgement.
  • Here is how the New York Times have treated the critics.
  • “her critics, many of them fellow Chinese Americans”
  • “Details like that have produced a storm of opposition from some Chinese, especially in the United States, who accuse Ms. Fu of lying.
The Cultural Revolution was bad for many, they agree, but it’s important to be accurate. Ms. Fu’s story simply isn’t.”
  • Lastly, let me quote from the wikipedia rule book WP:SYN, part of WP:OR, “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources”. This rule applies no matter where you stand on the Bend Not Break controversy. Majiaerhao (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not original research to cover a subject the way that reliable sources cover it. We are not reaching any conclusion that reliable sources have not already reached and conveyed. We are only reporting what they say, and with the balance that the mainstream is giving them. First Light (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of Bend, Not Break, prior to its publication (Life Is a Mountain Range)

HISTORY OF BEND, NOT BREAK, PRIOR TO ITS PUBLICATION


Portfolio Buys Chinese Entrepreneur’s Tale

[BLP content redacted] at the [BLP content redacted] Agency sold world rights to Ping Fu’s Life Is a Mountain Range. Adrian Zackheim at Portfolio acquired the book, which will be edited by [BLP content redacted]. Fu is the president and CEO of Geomagic, a software company based in North Carolina that specializes in digital modeling. Her personal story, though, is what drew publishers. She grew up in China under the reign of Mao and survived a Chinese prison before arriving in the U.S., where she taught herself computer programming. Now an adviser to President Obama, Fu was also named an Inc. Magazine Entrepreneur of the Year in 2005. The agency said the book will offer Fu’s story as “an immigrant entrepreneur,” providing “powerful and inspiring lessons in self-reliance, integrity, and overcoming obstacles against the odds.”

From: Deals: Week of October 31, 2011 By [BLP content redacted] | Oct 31, 2011 http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/book-deals/article/49319-deals-week-of-october-31-2011.html


By: Romantic Realist [Please help with Wikipedia coding] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romantic Realist (talk • contribs) 20:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. See WP:BLPNAME. I have redacted their names.

Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. I see nothing in this clip that you've provided that adds significant value to the article. See WP:UNDUE. If another editor believes that it's significant, it's their call. VanHarrisArt (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Fu's education at The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, needs to be updated to correct inaccuracies, per UNM Records & Registration

Please update Ping Fu’s Wikipedia entry. Reference to her graduate study at UNM should be deleted.

According to Records & Registration, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, (505) 277-8900, which reviewed Ping Fu’s Wikipedia disclosure of her education at UNM:

1. There are some inaccuracies.

2. Ping Fu was enrolled as an undergraduate student with a major in computer science, from September 1984 to July 1986.

3. Ping Fu did not actually receive any academic degree (e.g., Bachelor of Science or Master of Science) from the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

4. Ping Fu was not enrolled in UNM’s graduate program in computer science as a master’s student.

[Added by Romantic Realist][Please help with Wikipedia coding]

Do you have a reliable secondary source for that? First Light (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please go read WP:BLPPRIMARY. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were Ping Fu’s parents killed during the Chinese Cultural Revolution?

On March 11, 2013, NPR reported that “Fu is a refugee of the Chinese cultural revolution whose biological and adoptive parents were killed. She says that before she could finish college in China, she was told to leave or be killed. Fu immigrated to the U.S., got a degree in computer science, and went on to, among other things, found Geomagic.”

NPR’s March 11, 2013 report contradicts Ping Fu’s 2012 memoir (Bend, Not Break) and her 1996 memoir (Piao Liu Ping).

These contradictions (whether her parents were killed during Chinese Cultural Revolution) needs to be resolved. Alternatively, questions regarding Ping Fu’s parents’ death need to be disclosed.

The Most Talked About Tech And Culture Trends At SXSW Interactive Elise Hu and Laura Sydell March 11, 2013 7:20 AM

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/03/11/173928533/the-most-talked-about-tech-and-culture-trends-at-sxsw-interactive

[Romantic Realist][Please help with Wikipedia coding]Romantic Realist (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)§[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/04/ping-fu-defends-bend-not-break-memoir-against-online-chinese-attack.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ping_Fu&oldid=543513075"